3 ms·

How many? I keep hearing this question as if asking it was a valid argument in itself. (Though, to be fair, you do underline that you don't know the answer.) R

by atleta 4y ago

How many? I keep hearing this question as if asking it was a valid argument in itself. (Though, to be fair, you do underline that you don't know the answer.) Regarding your question: whatever they do, those humans will consume resources and create waste. We can't delete them if we do away with Visa :). Sure, they, in theory, would be able to work on something else, freeing up their resources, but that wouldn't decrease the resource use of humanity. Also, people keep comparing BTC's current resource use to the bank system (I think that includes the CC companies as well). However, very few transactions are done with BTC compared to the world financial system (or even just Visa). And if adoption grows, BTC price grows and if BTC price grows (or, in other words everything devalues relative to BTC) then mining rewards grow (measured in other assets) and if mining rewards grow then new miners will join and that means using more energy. I think I've seen a comparison between Visa and BTC measuring how much energy each used for doing a single transaction (or for moving a set amount). Visa was 10 or 100 fold more efficient. Even back then.

Seam0nkey 4y ago
I actually think you give the parent argument just a tad too little credit. If crypto was useful as a currency (and, as you point out, if it is comparably as energy efficient as visa), that would be an effective refutation to the energy consumption argument; freeing up human resources to do something else would be a substantial net benefit of the system for society. However, crypto does not behave to act effectively as a currency; it would be an awful idea to replace the global financial infrastructure with crypto thus the energy costs are here to stay.
- atleta 4y ago
  Well, it's not enough to be useful. It should be better to justify the extra energy consumption. Especially given the climate change. Also, you forget that we actually don't yet know (no one has estimated, as far as I'm aware) the realistic consumption that we'd see with wide spread adoption. And without that, it's very hard to argue and say that it's worth it because of the usefulness. Because we don't know how much we're talking about. So I think the energy argument fails on it's own. Also, it should come at least with strong supporting arguments claiming the actual benefits. But I do agree that cryptos are worse than the currencies we have and existing block chains (I'm aware of) don't make sense even as a distributed transaction tracking system for fiat currencies.
plsbenice34 4y ago
Removing the human factor is not just about comparing energy and resource efficiency. There is a social and political impact. Intermediaries like banks infringe on our basic freedoms to hold our own money, to have privacy, and transact with each other as we wish. Therefore there will always be value to such a system that allows us to transact directly peer-to-peer; it is unstoppable that people will seek this, regardless of anything, even legality. In terms of automating away humans, aren't we building society to improve human life? You're wasting human life by requiring labor, what is more valuable than that? At least as a heuristic, looking at human history it seems obvious that automation is the best way forward when people don't want or need a personable, smiling face serving them. I need to go apply for a bank account right now and know it is going to take weeks and several meetings, I passionately hate this. >if mining rewards grow then new miners will join and that means using more energy. The block reward continually decreases with time, so it isn't clear that more adoption will increase energy usage. I'd say the opposite seems likely - I worry how bitcoin will incentivise miners to secure the chain in the long term. >I think I've seen a comparison between Visa and BTC measuring how much energy each used for doing a single transaction (or for moving a set amount). Visa was 10 or 100 fold more efficient. Even back then. One on-chain transaction can be a settlement of many off-chain lightning network transactions, so in future the efficiency should increase dramatically. Like the other poster I don't know the quantitative answer when it comes to efficiency and expected energy usage, but I'm again pointing out that there are other factors.
- IAmEveryone 4y ago
  "A system that allows us to transact directly, peer-to-peer" is "unstoppable that people will seek this, regardless of anything, even legality" It's a serious indictment of this generation that they talk about useless, wasteful distributed hash functions in the way previous generations talked about things that matter(ed). Also your essay has nothing to do with issue of the posts above.
  - plsbenice34 4y ago
    I don't follow, but you communicated your animosity. The topics of the thread have everything to do with each other as I read it: the value of the technology, human resources and efficiency (waste vs value). I thought past generations valued freedom and privacy even more.

by atleta 4y ago

Seam0nkey 4y ago

I actually think you give the parent argument just a tad too little credit. If crypto was useful as a currency (and, as you point out, if it is comparably as energy efficient as visa), that would be an effective refutation to the energy consumption argument; freeing up human resources to do something else would be a substantial net benefit of the system for society. However, crypto does not behave to act effectively as a currency; it would be an awful idea to replace the global financial infrastructure with crypto thus the energy costs are here to stay.

atleta 4y ago
Well, it's not enough to be useful. It should be better to justify the extra energy consumption. Especially given the climate change. Also, you forget that we actually don't yet know (no one has estimated, as far as I'm aware) the realistic consumption that we'd see with wide spread adoption. And without that, it's very hard to argue and say that it's worth it because of the usefulness. Because we don't know how much we're talking about. So I think the energy argument fails on it's own. Also, it should come at least with strong supporting arguments claiming the actual benefits. But I do agree that cryptos are worse than the currencies we have and existing block chains (I'm aware of) don't make sense even as a distributed transaction tracking system for fiat currencies.

plsbenice34 4y ago

Removing the human factor is not just about comparing energy and resource efficiency. There is a social and political impact. Intermediaries like banks infringe on our basic freedoms to hold our own money, to have privacy, and transact with each other as we wish. Therefore there will always be value to such a system that allows us to transact directly peer-to-peer; it is unstoppable that people will seek this, regardless of anything, even legality. In terms of automating away humans, aren't we building society to improve human life? You're wasting human life by requiring labor, what is more valuable than that? At least as a heuristic, looking at human history it seems obvious that automation is the best way forward when people don't want or need a personable, smiling face serving them. I need to go apply for a bank account right now and know it is going to take weeks and several meetings, I passionately hate this. >if mining rewards grow then new miners will join and that means using more energy. The block reward continually decreases with time, so it isn't clear that more adoption will increase energy usage. I'd say the opposite seems likely - I worry how bitcoin will incentivise miners to secure the chain in the long term. >I think I've seen a comparison between Visa and BTC measuring how much energy each used for doing a single transaction (or for moving a set amount). Visa was 10 or 100 fold more efficient. Even back then. One on-chain transaction can be a settlement of many off-chain lightning network transactions, so in future the efficiency should increase dramatically. Like the other poster I don't know the quantitative answer when it comes to efficiency and expected energy usage, but I'm again pointing out that there are other factors.

IAmEveryone 4y ago
"A system that allows us to transact directly, peer-to-peer" is "unstoppable that people will seek this, regardless of anything, even legality" It's a serious indictment of this generation that they talk about useless, wasteful distributed hash functions in the way previous generations talked about things that matter(ed). Also your essay has nothing to do with issue of the posts above.
- plsbenice34 4y ago
  I don't follow, but you communicated your animosity. The topics of the thread have everything to do with each other as I read it: the value of the technology, human resources and efficiency (waste vs value). I thought past generations valued freedom and privacy even more.